Tis_Bearself
Patron
Not sure how the idea of God forgiving you doesn’t make sense.
- Status
Tis_Bearself
Patron
If somebody is desperately in need of the Body and Blood of Christ, then the Mass said by the laicized priest would be valid and one could receive the Eucharist. The Mass would still be illicit.
Obviously if you were stuck in a concentration camp and the only priest available was Ted McCarrick, maybe at that point you wouldn’t much care, and would simply say to God, “Lord, please understand that this is an extreme situation and we are just trying to have Mass in the only way possible.”
Obviously if you were stuck in a concentration camp and the only priest available was Ted McCarrick, maybe at that point you wouldn’t much care, and would simply say to God, “Lord, please understand that this is an extreme situation and we are just trying to have Mass in the only way possible.”
This is exactly the kind of scenario I had in mind. I suppose, and this is really a nitpick, that I was wondering whether the principle of epikeia would “kick in”, and the illicit Mass would become licit out of grave necessity. It really doesn’t matter — the law of the salvation of souls would trump the lesser law of the priest having been laicized or defrocked. If I were in the circumstances you describe, I would joyfully receive the sacrament from Mr McCarrick’s illicit Mass and not even entertain the idea that I might have to ask Our Lord to understand our predicament. But I can understand why others might feel this need.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
That’s not how Confession works. Firstly a sinful priest being able to validly give the sacraments (which is solely for the laities sake) has nothing to do with forgiveness. Secondly a priest can only withold absolution or the Eucharist if there is an exterior reason that already makes the person uneligible.
A
annad347
Guest
That’s not the part that doesnt makes sense.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Right. Your chain-smoking family doctor is still right and still doing his duty when he tells you that you should not smoke because it’s bad for your health.
It’s no less dangerous for you to smoke, even if he does.
Yep. In the same way that your chain-smoking doctor can identify whether your health has improved by your quitting smoking, your priest can identify whether your sins have been forgiven.
Nope. Wrong conclusion.
Jesus even said “no everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’, will enter the kingdom of heaven”. God forgives all who are truly repentant and who resolve to amend their lives.
So, the priest should refuse absolution to those whom God will refuse forgiveness – that is, those who do not repent and who do not intend to change their lives. If the priest did absolve such a person, it would allow them to gain false confidence in their standing before God. To these, especially, it’s important to say, “it’s time to get right with God, brother!”
Again an invalid conclusion. “Fallen priests” and “absolution of penitents” are not the same situation, and we shouldn’t conflate them as if they were!
You got it! He may perform them! (It is a personal sin for him, perhaps, to commit sacrilege, but the sacraments exist independently of his personal situation!)
God forgives you when the priest absolves you. That’s what Jesus promised.
What would the “grave necessity” for liceity be, in that case?
OK – what’s the part that doesn’t make sense, then?
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
I don’t think you understand how the sacraments work and why.
A
Asinner
Guest
My thoughts are no, a priest who does not have faculties from his bishop would never celebrate Mass licitly. Bishops have this power, and if there was an exception it would be written out in canon law, and as far as I know it doesn’t exist.
I’m also not convinced there would ever be a true need for the Eucharist in any “danger of death” scenario. Yes, baptism or absolution is sometimes needed in an emergency because they are the “Sacraments of the dead,” and bring the spiritually dead to life and salvation. Canon law does have explicit provisions for these to be licitly celebrated even by lacized priests in emergencies. But the Eucharist is one of the Sacraments of the living, meaning anyone able to receive it is already in a state of grace and thus not absolutely necessary in an emergency.
I also dislike the idea of using Mass simply as a kind of “Eucharist factory.” Mass is itself an act of worship of God, and I think a priest doing it under disobedient circumstances is very contradictory to that nature of worship.
I’m also not convinced there would ever be a true need for the Eucharist in any “danger of death” scenario. Yes, baptism or absolution is sometimes needed in an emergency because they are the “Sacraments of the dead,” and bring the spiritually dead to life and salvation. Canon law does have explicit provisions for these to be licitly celebrated even by lacized priests in emergencies. But the Eucharist is one of the Sacraments of the living, meaning anyone able to receive it is already in a state of grace and thus not absolutely necessary in an emergency.
I also dislike the idea of using Mass simply as a kind of “Eucharist factory.” Mass is itself an act of worship of God, and I think a priest doing it under disobedient circumstances is very contradictory to that nature of worship.
A
annad347
Guest
Never said it was my job, but the OP mentioned sexual abuse, performing mass, confessions in mortal sin… or maybe he didn’t mean mortal sin… but I’m thinking sexual abuse would be considered mortal sin… anyway doing that may not change the meaning of the acts he performed, cause he’s just a channel… granted a broken one but a channel, but out of politeness of being a good christian and knowing he did something that had an affect on people, he should ask them for forgiveness.
For example: he sexually abused someone in the church, performed sacraments in mortal sin… when members of that church finds out they’ll be affected by what he did. especially if its a small church, how will they be able to trust him? what if he abused someone, who turned from God.
See you’re thinking like a strong Catholic Christian, with knowledge of the truth and God. I’m thinking of a member in a small Catholic church in the middle of no where. a new member who is young, who’s only knowledge of the truth is being ministered by this one priest. Everything you said is true, but do you think this young new Catholic would know that? He/she is being taught by the only priest they know, and if that priest is a sinner, that will have an affect on people?
But you’re right he doesn’t need my forgiveness, nor should I withhold my forgiveness for what he did. God wants us to forgive those who trespass against us… but like I said, out of politeness he should ask for it.
apples and oranges… not the same thing.
so if a priest doesn’t absolve me, God doesn’t forgive me? @Tis_Bearself said the same thing.
You don’t have to answer that, I heard about John 20:23. I’ll talk to my priest on Wednesday about it. I was just explaining the part that doesn’t make sense.
I guess I don’t… but God willing, through the Holy Spirit and my faith in Jesus Christ, one day I will.
again, thanks for trying to help, God Bless.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I don’t know where you are in the world, but in the USA nowadays, a priest with a credible allegation of sexual abuse against him, or any other major scandal (such as he stole a large amount of collection money, he was caught making gay dates on Grindr, he had heroin mailed to himself at the rectory) would be pulled from his parish immediately. He would not be allowed to hang around the parish hearing confessions or saying Mass, so there would not be an issue of his parishioners needing to trust him, forgive him, or have anything to do with his sins.
The only way that a priest with serious sin on his soul would be saying Mass or hearing confessions nowadays in USA would be if the parish had not yet heard that he committed a sin. And no, the priest is not going to go ask his parish for forgiveness in that instance. He will probably never see most of them again. He might talk to one or two close friends, but what he would be able to say would be restricted by the diocese and his lawyers.
You’re coming up with all kinds of scenarios here that just aren’t making sense from a Catholic perspective, at least not in USA. I also agree with the person who said you don’t seem to understand what a sacrament is and how it works.
I’m not going to engage in a bunch of further speculation on here about “what if the priest did this” or “what if the priest did that”.
And Gorgias is right on the money with the “Chain smoking family doctor” analogy. The fact that you’re saying “Not the same thing” when it is exactly the same thing is just indicating to me that it’s pointless to discuss further. Your mind isn’t open to discussion.
Muting now.
E
Elf01
Guest
A minor disagreement. The priest administers the sacraments in persona Christi. The doctor doesn’t have an analogy for that.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Pretty much exactly the same thing (although in different contexts)! In what way would you say that it is not?
If you pray directly to God, how do you know that He forgives you? That is, how do you know that you have proper contrition and the intent to not sin again?
If the priest absolves you, then you know that God forgives you. Otherwise… do you really know?
There is no one else in the universe who administers sacraments in the way priests do. So, it’s an analogy, not a exact example.
(As an analogy, I’d assert it works well. IMHO.)
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
I concur. Not apples and oranges, more like Gala and Honeycrisp. Not absolutely 100% identical, but about as close an analogy as I have seen before.
A
annad347
Guest
It’s okay you’re not the first person whom I’ve frustrated with my questions and comments… for that I’m sorry… and I’m in Orlando FL, originally from B’klyn NY.
How, do you know you are trully absolved by the priest, if he is in mortal sin while listening to your confessions? If he can not hear the will of God for his own life, how can he hear it for yours?
You quoted the passage ‘Lord Lord…’ Matthew 7:21. Does that passage not apply to priest? The Lord will hear my confessions, my repentance from someone who hasn’t ask it for himself? Will allow me to be absolved by someone who hasn’t asked for absolution for himself? Why? Why would God not change the soul of the man who is being used to save the soul of his brother?
IMO, the reason the doctor analogy was apples and oranges is God.
When a man becomes a doctor, he promises to do all he can to help his patients, he never made a promises to God to live a clean healthy life, he never promised anyone anything. He doesn’t have to live by example. He’s allowed to say, do as I say, not as I do.
When a man becomes a priest he promises God to show the world he is living in the Spirit of God, living in the Light. He is reborn in the light of God. He is no longer who he use to be but new in Christ. He lives by the will of God through The Holy Spirit by his words, actions and deeds (maybe not specifically how I said but I’ hope you understand what I mean). He is not allowed to say, do as I say not as I do. God is suppose to be in his mind, on lips, in heart… and in his actions (works).
A priest performing any of his duties while in mortal sin is not doing as God intended… a priest in a constant state of mortal sin is not filled with The Holy Spirit, he is not the channel of God, so he is not a priest… he is who God will say ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoer.’ Mathew 7:23
A better comparison would be a doctor, who is trying to care for you as his patient and yet he’s not a doctor, never even went to medical school. He might help you, he might even save your life, but it will be by the Grace of God. Your salvation would have nothing to do with the doctor.
With that analogy you are right, a priest can living in mortal sin hear your confessions, give you the Eucharist, perform all his duties… he might help you, you might even be saved but salvation wont have anything to do with the priest, it will only be by the Grace of God.
but yes, you are all right I don’t seem to understand what a sacrament is and how it works… I thought the purity of the person performing them was important.
I pray this help you understand where my mind is. I’m not being close minded or difficult, I really am trying to understand.
Thank you again for trying to help.
God Bless
Last edited:
This is precisely the reason why sacraments are valid whatever state the priest administering them is in. If it weren’t the case, we would constantly be second-guessing the validity of whatever sacrament we have just received. God acts through the priest independently of his state, as long as he was validly ordained. It may not seem right, but it is actually a protection for the faithful. Without that protection, we would be treading a very slippery slope, which would inevitably end up in people saying that Father Joe didn’t validly consecrate the Eucharist because he used a crystal chalice when the Vatican says that vessels shouldn’t be breakable, or people going en masse to Father Bill’s Mass, which would be seen as “more valid” than Father Bob’s because he is a better person.
This is a wholly other question. Sacraments are not about hearing the will of God. They are about performing an act that, according to God’s promise, is in itself the vehicle of His grace.
We are only saved by the grace of God, be our priest a sinner or a saint.
B
Bill6
Guest
This question was settled in the Early Church. The personal holiness of the minister of a Sacrament has absolutely nothing to with the graces of the Sacrament. As long as the person recieves the Sacrament validly, they reccieve the same amount of grace whether their priest is St. Padre Pio or a priest in mortal sin. A preist outside of Grace still has the faculties to validly celebrate Mass, but he isn’t supposed to. Even if he did and a person reccieves Communion, if they didn’t know then they aren’t sining and reccieve grace. This will probably help you:
God bless.
Pedophile Priests and Sacramental Validity
Q: At a family reunion this summer, we learned that the priest who had married my cousin and her husband has been removed from the parish. He was accused of pedophilia or some other sexual impropr…
canonlawmadeeasy.com
God bless.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Because Christ promised it. Remember: at the time Christ made the promise (John 20), Peter hadn’t yet been forgiven of his sin (the three denials). Yet, Christ doesn’t say “whoever’s sins you forgive – except for you, Peter, since you’re still in the doghouse – are forgiven them”! Jesus says, without exception, “whoever’s sins you forgive, are forgiven them.”
As others have noted, this was a stumbling block for the early Church – some folks were thinking the same thing! And, with the authority of the Church (which, again, Jesus had given the apostles!), it was decided that the personal holiness of the priest was not a factor in the validity of the sacrament! The sacrament works because it’s a sacrament of Jesus, not a sacrament of the priest himself.
By the same token: if a doctor can’t tell himself “it’s important for me to stop smoking”, how can he tell you that same thing? Easy: it’s true, regardless whether or not he does it himself.
Moreover, it’s not like a priest hears a little heavenly voice in his head that says “absolve this person” or “withhold absolution here”! Rather, he knows that, if the penitent shows contrition and the resolve to try and not sin again, he will absolve (and the person will be forgiven)!
Yes and Yes!
Because the forgiveness of your sins depends on you, not on anyone else.
Who says He’s not trying that exact thing?!?
Fair enough, to an extent. Still, he is conformed to Christ the Head of the Church, and so, he’s never devoid of that charism.
Nope. Show me where you draw that conclusion from?
At the end of his life? Perhaps… if he doesn’t repent. However, that later possibility doesn’t negate the fact that he’s a priest of Jesus Christ now.
Think about it for a second: do you think God would make you be held to blame for a priest’s sins? No way! His sins affect him, not you!
G
Gorgias
Guest
I see where you’re going with that. But, here’s the problem: that not-quite-doctor would have no access to the medicines you need to heal. So, he wouldn’t be able to prescribe them, and you wouldn’t be healed, “grace of God” or not!
But, it’s a decent analogy, I think, because it highlights something important in the original analogy! The doctor who smokes and overeats is still a doctor, nevertheless, and is still able to prescribe the healing medicine, despite his personal shortcomings! And so, while the “not quite doctor” cannot heal you, the poor-example doctor can !!! (And a “good example doctor” can not only heal you, but he can inspire you to “do as he does”!)
Last edited:
- Status